Republican Debate Highlights Disagreements On NDAA, Indefinite Detention

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. -- The Republican candidates have sharp disagreements over a new policy to detain American citizens suspected of terrorism.

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow indefinite detention of such terror suspects. Many civil liberties activists believe the law is unconstitutional.

Front-runner Mitt Romney said he would have signed the law and insisted it was "appropriate" to detain American members of al-Qaida.

"Yes, I would have," said Romney when asked whether he would have signed the legislation as President Obama did. Members of the crowd -- most likely supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believes the bill is unconstitutional -- booed him.

"I do believe it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don't have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That's treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail."

The crowd loudly applauded this response.

Romney then said that while he disagreed with Obama on most matters, he would give him the benefit of the doubt not to abuse the powers in the NDAA.

"I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and some of them on our own soil, that could be abused," he said. "There are lots of things I think this president does wrong -- lots of them -- but I don't think he will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power."

Other members of the crowd again booed Romney.

Rick Santorum said a U.S. citizen who is detained as an enemy combatant should have the right to a lawyer and to appeal their case before a federal court.

Ron Paul said holding American citizens indefinitely is a breach of the U.S. judicial system.

Comments

[wolfdance]

11:12 AM on 01/30/2012

This whole article about NDAA and only one sentence about the only one trying to fight it for us Ron Paul. smh

[itiswhatitmaybe]

12:40 AM on 01/21/2012

NDAA INFORMATION:

THE YOUNG TURKS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeuE16LLDY&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=3&feature=plcp
ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-not-enough-of-a-safeguard-says-amnesty-international-as-president-obama-signs-the-ndaa-i
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
http://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/nlg-condemns-ndaa-provisions/
JONATHAN TURLEY
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/16/indefinite-detention-of-citizens-a-response-to-senator-carl-levin/#more-44023
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/02/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR7aIzII5LU&feature=player_embedded
GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?_r=1
JUSTIA
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained
DEMOCRACY NOW
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_admin
NATURAL NEWS
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html

[Matt Critelli]

12:24 PM on 01/18/2012

Well I am now a former Obama supporter. I don't care about anything else he has done/or will do with the remaining of his term. This single action is so detrimental to our civil rights ripe for abuse that it overshadows everything else. I will be voting for a 3rd/4th/5th party candidate no matter how close this election is.

[Yahushuahs Helper]

12:24 AM on 01/18/2012

This is a terrible law that strips away all civil liberties of Americans. It will be abused. I simply can't believe that that the Senate passed this law and Obama signed it. The governement is out of control. Everyone should watch their backs, because now the government can imprison you whenever they want for however long they want and torture you. They don't even have to have a reason anymore.

[Aurical]

10:08 PM on 01/17/2012

Still holding steady at 95, you all dissappoint me. A thread ACTUALLY dedicated to your cause de célèbre, and now you have nothing to say. Did your handlers assign new talking points and threads to infest?

[CenaW]

09:42 PM on 01/18/2012

Most of the Republicans love this.

[Aurical]

09:18 PM on 01/17/2012

This thread should have 20 thousand posts in it, you tro//z have been interjecting this bill into every discussion for weeks whether it was on topic or not. Have at it.

[Hailey Erikson]

06:41 PM on 01/17/2012

There is literally no difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire. Obama's policies have all aided and abetted the existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.

And why do you think he can raise money with the best of them. When you sellout your country to wall street and the MIC the kickbacks are outstanding.

[johnny strike]

05:48 PM on 01/17/2012

Need anymore proof that Romney would be like Obama? Seriously.

On another note the true statesman Ron Paul rushes back to DC to vote against the debt increase.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jan/17/paul-plans-dc-detour-vote-against-debt-increase/

[Above God]

05:30 PM on 01/17/2012

Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate to make the NDAA an issue in the nomination process. The NDAA violates the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Bill of Rights, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Obama and all members of Congress that voted for the NDAA are traitors and should be detained w/o charges or triall by the military indefinately. Hell, they voted for their own demise the idiots.

[sarahfigueroa207]

10:11 AM on 01/18/2012

"Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate to make the NDAA an issue in the nomination process"

Then why did he not bother to cast a vote? I would think someone who claims he is a defender of the Constitution would have voted a resounding NO.

[Zenmunk]

01:24 PM on 01/18/2012

NDAA (H.R. 1540) was voted on twice. The first vote was on May 26, 2011, and Ron Paul voted "no." Source: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll375.xml#N

The second and final vote was on December 14, 2011. Ron Paul was absent during that vote. Why? Only Ron Paul could answer that question for sure. However, the following should be taken into consideration:

- Ron Paul already voted "no" on H.R. 1540 on May 26, 2011

- A bill is passed only by getting a "yes" vote. A "no" vote & not voting at all equal the same thing regarding passage of a bill.

- Ron Paul was campaigning for the republican nomination. While voting "no" again on 12/14/11 may have been a symbolic gesture, leaving his campaign to effectively accomplish the same thing as just not voting makes no sense whatsoever.

- Ron Paul is, by far, the most outspoken person in public life (in or out of politics) against the NDAA, Patriot Act, SOPA, PIPA and the like. To deny that is just completely disingenuous. A Google search can easily verify that.

- When his vote really matters, he does what he must do. For example, Ron Paul is coming off the campaign trail in South Carolina in order to return to Washington so he can vote against giving President Obama the authority to increase the debt-ceiling. Source: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/17/ron-paul-come-campaign-trail-debt-ceiling-vote

[Zenmunk]

09:19 AM on 01/19/2012

On January 18, 2011, Ron Paul sacrificed precious time on the campaign trail in South Carolina in order to return to Washington to do the following:

- Vote "no" to increase the debt ceiling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yd3ECxc7Eew

- Introduce a piece of legislation to repeal the infamous Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, quietly signed into law by Obama on New Year’s Day. Sec. 1021 essentially "provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely. No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court." Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YjyP02_dQFQ

No question Ron Paul is the greatest statesman of our time.

[CenaW]

09:56 PM on 01/18/2012

Ron Paul is the only candidate openly f a . sc i. st. and r as . ci s. t

Ron Paul might think the federal government must not have drug laws, but he is all for states having such laws. as well as laws against abortion, promotin religon in schools . . but then he is 100% opposed to tax supported public schools.

[sergal stew]

02:50 AM on 01/19/2012

We're talking about our outright personal freedom and that's the best you can come up with, name-calling?

How old are you?

[Zenmunk]

11:40 AM on 01/20/2012

Firstly, Ron Paul does believe in Federal laws, as long as they operate within the confines of the Constitution. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So, Federal powers (laws) should be "few and defined" and only be concerned with war, negotiation, foreign commerce, and taxation (but NOT income tax). Everything else should be (but sadly isn't) outside the scope of Federal Law. Conversely, State powers (laws) should be "numerous and indefinite" extending "to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

In short, the bulk of power was meant to be with the States, not the Federal Government. This is all to avoid the abuse of centralized power for YOUR benefit and the benefit of every American.

[BethBall]

05:14 PM on 01/17/2012

If you think indefinite detention is scary, read what the presidential candidates have to say about authorizing the killing of American citizens without trial: http://commonsenseopenmind.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/who-can-authorize-a-citizen-to-die/

[Phil Clarkson]

04:36 PM on 01/17/2012

Anyone who supports the NDAA is a traitor to the Constitution and to free peoples everywhere. Senator Orrin Hatch says he's for Individual Liberty, that the White House is "Autocratic." Yet he votes for the White House to use the Military for Domestic Law Enforcement? Supports the President incarcerating Citizens of the Nation indefinitely and without a trial!? This is absolute Tyranny in the making and we can't even see it. The crowd boos RP for mentioning the Golden Rule- the GOLDEN RULE!! "Shoot them in the head" Romney says- and they cheer!? We're a warmongering Nation. Orrin Hatch and all the rest of em in the Senate and the House who don't walk their own talk are in league with our Government and their designs to enslave the people

[HamOnRye]

09:53 AM on 01/17/2012

HP sure loves their Romney.

[hopefulidealist]

04:09 PM on 01/17/2012

Romney's the new Obama. Either or we're screwed:)

[johnny strike]

05:50 PM on 01/17/2012

Say that again, and Santorum, and Gingrich, and even Perry.

But where is Paul? People must see through this.

[Hieronymous Hornblat]

08:36 AM on 01/17/2012

This is essentially Paul's issue, and they give him one line in the article? I guess when they heaped abuse on him and saw his numbers rising, they decided to go back to blackout mode! Think I'm paranoid? Paul is in second place in SC and there is no mention of him on the front page here. The Ron Paul page barely mentions his name in the article headlines.

[hopefulidealist]

04:10 PM on 01/17/2012

There's no mention of Paul anywhere on sites, newscasts, etc that are owned and operated by corporate thugs.

[Hieronymous Hornblat]

05:18 PM on 01/17/2012

Ain't it the truth! I've listened to about five hours of NPR today, and they are certainly covering the South Carolina primary. They are bludgeoning me with Romney and Gingrich, with a couple of mentions of Santorum. Guess what, NO MENTION AT ALL of Ron Paul or his ideas, until finally, they interview a woman who likes Paul, and she says he'll help the "Company, I mean the Country." LOL! These people are highly educated and sophisticated, and you know dern well they cherry picked this gaff in order to put Paul down. They are TERRIFIED and their bloated existence depends on seeing him go away. I have donated to NPR and have watched it grow from a bold experiment in the 70's to the bloated trumpet of the Washington status quo that it is today. There is no excuse for this kind of journalism, and it has become a symptom of our broken society.

[johnny strike]

05:53 PM on 01/17/2012

He is a close 3rd in Iowa, a solid 2nd in NH and FOX puts him at the end where Hunstman was.
Disgraceful.

[Jeanette DeBella Bogue]

08:08 AM on 01/17/2012

What did the other candidates say?

[Eric Echevarria]

07:49 AM on 01/17/2012

Last nights debate proved once and for all that if any of the candidates are unelectable it is Mitt Romney.